Sunday, March 07, 2010

Michael Geist on The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

There will soon be a big new beast in the IP jungle. And while the creature comes with the seemingly innocuous acronym of ACTA, cyber activists and copyright mavens fear that it will pave the way for a Global DMCA(Digital Millennium Copyright Act) that will significantly impact on ordinary people's privacy, and erode civil liberties. Moreover, they warn, the secrecy surrounding the ACTA negotiations raises important questions about representative democracy, and demonstrates the extent to which the developed world remains determined to dominate and control the developing world. For the research community, says University of Ottawa's Michael Geist, ACTA will make Open Access (OA) even more urgent. However, he cautions, if ACTA succeeds inpropagating the bruising statutory damages rules used in US copyright infringement cases it could threaten the institutional repository movement.

An initiative of the US, the European Commission, Switzerland and Japan, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was launched in October 2007, although negotiations didn't begin until the following spring. Subsequently Australia, Canada, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates have also joined the negotiations.

Given the health and safety implications of, say, counterfeit drugs, most people might assume that anything that can help prevent mass counterfeiting would be a good thing, and wish ACTA negotiators Godspeed.

But as time has passed a number of important questions have arisen about ACTA. Why, for instance, are the negotiations being conducted in secret? And why does ACTA include an Internet Chapter (and civil enforcement and criminal provisions) evidently focused not on preventing counterfeiting, but pushing TRIPS (the 1994 WTO-negotiated Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement) further down the road of IP maximalism — to create a kind of TRIPS-Plus?

There is, it seems, more to ACTA than meets the eye. Indeed if one consults the EC fact sheet published in 2007 (and updated in 2009) the objective of ACTA is more widely described as being that of facilitating "international cooperation" to create a "legal framework for enforcement of (IPRs)" and "enforcement practices" to match. This is necessary, the document explains, in order to stem a worldwide "proliferation of IPR infringements".

Unsurprisingly many have concluded that ACTA is somewhat of a misnomer — a conclusion confirmed in 2008, when a leaked ACTA document turned up on the Internet. This revealed that the objectives of those negotiating ACTA were considerably more ambitious than the public had been led to believe.

Amongst other things, the document suggested that there were plans to force ISPs to provide customer information, to allow border guards to inspect laptops, cameras, iPods and other devices; and, moreover, to do so even where no complaint had been made by a rights-holder. Additionally, reported Canada's Globe and Mail, "The agreement would permit guards and others to conduct 'ex parte' searches of property or individuals, meaning a lawyer would not have to be present."

The leaked ACTA document triggered a firestorm of criticism in the blogosphere, forcing the EC to respond by publishing a Q&A document denying that iPods would be seized, and stressing that ACTA "is not about limiting civil liberties or harassing consumers".

In any case, the EC rebuttal pointed out, it is too early to say what ACTA will or will not consist of since, "There is no ACTA text", and "negotiations are still ongoing." In short, "The process is at an early stage, and most alarmist ideas that circulate on the web or in the press are speculations which do not reflect the true nature of the ACTA negotiations."

Third party liability has also become a controversial issue, with further leaked documents suggesting there are plans to limit the safe harbour rules for ISPs. This would have significant implications for internet service providers and web-based content providers, since they could become liable for any infringing content they distributed.

The bizarre behaviour of the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) has served only to increase suspicion: When civil society activists requested access to ACTA documents under Freedom of Information legislation, for instance, they were told that access was not possible for reasons of "national security."

With growing media interest the USTR eventually agreed to provide copies of the controversial "Internet Chapter" to several public interest groups, including Public Knowledge and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) — but only if they first signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and did not take any of the documents they were shown away with them.

More recently, the research community has begun to think through what ACTA might mean for it too — particularly the chilling effect it could have on the current trend for making research papers freely available in institutional repositories on an open-access basis. There are fears, for instance, that ACTA will propagate US-style statutory damages legislation. This could make universities increasingly reluctant to permit researchers to self-archive the papers that they have published in scholarly journals.

Meanwhile further leaked documents have continued to appear on the Web. Last October, for instance, an EU commentary on a US proposal revealed that US negotiators are pressing for an account-termination system to be put in place for copyright infringement, with "civil remedies, as well as criminal penalties".

The cult blog Boing Boinginterpreted this as meaning that ACTA negotiators want to see widespread use of the controversial three strikes approach to copyright infringement. This, said Boing Boing, would threaten ordinary citizens with the withdrawal of their Internet service if a member of their household was even suspected of copyright infringement. Boing Boing added that the third partly liability issue could also lead to the demise of web-based services like Flickr, YouTube and Blogger.

The problem for the public, however, is that there is insufficient information available to judge how great a threat ACTA represents. As Internet activist and blogger Cory Doctorow has pointed out, a number of different ACTA drafts have been leaked, and the text is clearly changing over time.

But with unrest growing, politicians have also begun to take an interest in ACTA. In Europe, MEPs began to jib at the lack of transparency at the beginning of last year. By November US Senators were asking questions too; and at the beginning of this year UK MPs began pushing for a cross-party motion to call for an end to the excessive secrecy surrounding ACTA.

Further raising the temperature of the debate, in February the EU Data Protection supervisor Peter Hustinx published a 20-page opinion expressing concern about the privacy implications of ACTA. The office of the trade commissioner Karel De Gucht was compelled to respond by pledging that ACTA would not force countries to disconnect people for unlawfully downloading copyrighted material.

"We are not supporting and will not accept that an eventual ACTA agreement creates an obligation to disconnect people from the internet because of illegal downloads," De Gucht's spokesman John Clancy assuredZDNetUK in February.

ACTA negotiators are clearly now under considerable pressure to rethink their approach. Evidence of that was apparent in the most recent leaked document, which reveals growing disagreement between the ACTA negotiating parties over some of the more controversial issues — including the proposals for anti-circumvention legislation and access controls. While the US wants a DCMA approach, many other countries, including the EU, Japan, and New Zealand do not — on the grounds that the WIPO Internet treaties (from which both the DMCA and the EC Copyright Directive emerged) do not require it.

But it is the issue of transparency that continues to attract the greatest criticism. To that end, four MEPS — Zuzana Roithova (Czech, EPP), Stavros Lambrinidis (Greek, Socialist), Alexander Alvaro (Germany, Liberal) and Françoise Castex (France, Socialist) — recently submitted a written declaration opposing ACTA. If the declaration gets sufficient signatures (starting tomorrow), it will challenge the European Union's rights to negotiate on the treaty. European citizens are being encouraged to write to the MEPs and ask for their support.

And last Friday Sweden announced that it had obtained an agreement among all members of the European Union to press for public disclosure of the ACTA text. "This now leaves the Obama White house as the only real obstacle to transparency", Knowledge Economy International's James Love commented on The Huffington Post site.

All in all, it seems, the whole ACTA process has become mired in confusion and controversy. The key question would seem to be whether ACTA will eventually prove to be the TRIPS-Plus agreement that some of the negotiating countries hope for (and critics fear), or whether it might prove a Waterloo for IP maximalists, the battleground on which the IP beast is finally tamed.

ACTA negotiators had hoped to complete the agreement by the end of 2010. As criticism continues to escalate that timetable seems increasingly unrealistic.

But what is ACTA really about? Why the secrecy? What are its implications?

UPDATE: ON WEDNESDAY 10th MARCH, IN A NEAR UNANIMOUS VOTE, 633 EUROPEAN MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MEPs) BACKED A RESOLUTION THAT SAID THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY SURROUNDING THE ACTA NEGOTIATIONS IS UNACCEPTABLE. ONLY 13 MEPs OPPOSED THE RESOLUTION AND 16 ABSTAINED.

##

If you wish to read the interview with Michael Geist please click on the link below. I am publishing it under a Creative Commons licence, so you are free to copy and distribute it as you wish, so long as you credit me as the author, do not alter or transform the text, and do not use it for any commercial purpose.

2 comments:

My 2p's worth on ACTA: Insofar as OA is concerned, this is all a tempest in a teapot. Universal OA self-archiving mandates, adopted worldwide by universities and funders, will ensure that all research is routinely made self-archived. That will be an irreversiblefait accompli. ACTA (if and when it gets its act together) will not be able to undo any of that; it will just have to bypass OAs and IRs and concentrate on other kinds of content (by far the majority), where the desires and interests of authors and publishers are aligned rather than opposed. (This is the first and most fundamental of the "Five Essential PostGutenberg Distinctions."

The adage of "Old wine in new bottle" is reshaped again in the conversion of SPLT of yesteryears to ACTA of today. It is clear that the propanants of ACTA have failed to collate the lessons of SPLT which died at the drawing board itself.

In a 08 years of doctoral and post doctoral research on corporations and PTOs from US, EU, Japan and specifically India titled "Best practices on Innovation and IPRs".The outcome of the research was creation of a framework christened as the "Integrated Innovation, Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Framework"(I2KIC). As I read the ACTA details in your article, I realised having arrived at similar results in my research(2007) albiet I propose that the implementation of such a framework be done with wider Country acceptance, IPR awareness, Training and futherance of research in the IPR domain.

I feel that these research options resulting into I2KIC framework be applied instead of proposing newer legisilations at WTO or TRIPS or ACTA which will always remain a political anti-capitilist bed of controversy.

Majority of the government sponsored schemes in the developing countries fail because of lack of credibility, execution mechanisms, lack of judicial efficiency & speed and corruption. Under such circumstances implementation of systematic frameworks for capability and maturity of IPR and Innovation processes will help compliance towards IPR protection in far greater way that any program that will be unacceptable to developing nations.

The Certifications of Integrated Innovation, Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Framework are the key to defining the IPR capability and Maturity of any knowledge company. The companies that have implemented I2KIC have reported far more innovation activity and attracted far more FDI/investment. These companies have also revieved strong patents, Trade Secrets and copyrights from their developed country counterparts thereby not only enchancing their brands but also improving revenues to multiple times. My take on the subject will be to improve awareness and encourage private partnership in curbing the giant of piracy and counterfirting.

For countries like India, it is an ideal time to implement the process as it witnessing large amount of technology transfer inflows in the form of Environmental and Defence OFFSETS. This would lead to a WIN-WIN deal for all in the either side of the parties.

As Capability and Maturity of the I2KIC level improves on a three stepped capability and Maturity ladder, the compliance of Anti piracy movements in developing countries will certainly spiral up substantially.

So , I propose the toast to I2KIC (I too Kick) Framework and urge the ACTA stakeholders and general IPR lovers to adapt the I2KIC framework in spirit.In this aspect please read an OECD journal comment "http://issuu.com/oecdobserver/docs/oecdobserver276-277-dec2009-jan2010"

With Hope to kindle a flame with Friend of Intellectual Capital

Details of my research are also published in my book titled "Breeding Innovation and Intellectual Capital" Edition 2.oDr Ajay Batra PhDIndia